List Article Attachments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only metadata is returned (not file bytes) and that both inline and block attachments are included, which goes beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, return type, scope, alternatives, and related actions. Front-loaded with the core action, no extraneous words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description fully explains what is returned (attachment metadata fields), the scope (both inline and block), and provides usage context via sibling distinction and upload reference. Annotations cover safety, and the output format is described despite no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter article_id, with a clear schema description. The description does not add new information about the parameter beyond confirming it's for Help Center articles, meeting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List all attachments for an article' and specifies that it returns metadata (id, file name, content type, size, URL). It also distinguishes from get_ticket_attachments, which is a sibling tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'This is for Help Center articles — for attachments on support tickets use get_ticket_attachments instead' and mentions 'Upload new files with create_article_attachment', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.